An opponent of health care reform rallied in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in March as it heard arguments in Florida's challenge to the Affordable Care Act.

I'll remain a critic of parts of Obamacare. But it's time to accept reality and write it into our business plans.

The Supreme Court and Florida voters denied nearly every significant challenge state Republicans could mount - including a proposed constitutional amendment urging rejection of its numerous mandates.

And a new study shows that opting out of the expansion of government insurance for the poor would cost Florida $100 million more per year than it saves. Moreover, we would continue to have the nation's second-worst rate of children and adults without coverage, worse than some of the poorest Southern states.

The right approach now for Gov. Rick Scott and the Legislature: Take control of development and watchdog the spending.

Fortunately, Scott seems to be warming up to that view.

"The election is over and President Obama won," Scott told the Associated Press last week. "I'm responsible for the families of Florida ? If I can get to yes, I want to get to yes."

Costs vs. benefits

For the unacquainted, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act but freed states from the requirement that they expand Medicaid coverage to more working-poor families and single people. States, which administer Medicaid and eventually will pay 10 percent of the expansion cost, had to opt in. Before the election, Gov. Scott refused.

How big is the potential growth in government coverage?

Very big.

Today, Florida has one of the most restrictive programs. Here, Medicaid basically covers children and pregnant women with household income of up to twice the poverty level ($38,000 for a family of three). Consequently, about 11.9 percent of Florida kids continue to go without any coverage, compared to 5.3 percent in Alabama and 5.8 percent in Louisiana.

Single adults in Florida do not qualify for Medicaid at all.

Obamacare would expand Medicaid to anyone with household income of up to 133 percent of poverty level, or $25,390 for a family of three.

That would cover an additional 815,000 to 1.2 million adults and children, according to an analysis released Nov. 15 by the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute.

That's a lot of good. But at what cost?

By 2020, the expansion would cost the state $600 million per year, Georgetown estimates. However, that cost would be offset by a $700 million reduction in payments to hospitals and mental health facilities for uninsured patients, among other planned government cuts, the analysis shows.

Net savings to Florida taxpayers: $100 million per year.

Turns out, the most socialistic portion of Obamacare could also prove fiscally conservative for this state.

"It is time for Florida's elected officials to take a serious look at this option," Georgetown research professor Joan Alker said in a statement accompanying the report.

The federal government would pay 100 percent of costs through 2014, then 90 percent afterward.

Floridians will pay the taxes to fund it, whether Tallahassee opts in or not.

Tired politics

Which may be why incoming Senate President Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, said Monday he would form a Select Committee on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to study implementation. That's a reversal of direction from outgoing Senate President Mike Haridopolos, R-Merritt Island, who backed Florida's Supreme Court challenge to Obamacare.

But some on the right still want a fight.

Elsewhere Monday, the Americans for Prosperity political-action committee slammed Gaetz, Scott and other legislative leaders for also exploring creation of state-based insurance exchanges.

Assuming they work, the exchanges are where small-business people and others could buy basic individual policies at competitive rates. Households earning up to $76,300 per year would pay premiums equal to 2 percent to 9 percent of their income, on a sliding scale.

"Creating an exchange puts state taxpayers on the hook for millions of dollars every year," Nicole Kaeding, the political group's state policy manager, warned in a prepared statement. "Florida should reject these bloated bureaucracies."

The Georgetown report had no cost-savings analysis on the exchanges.

But neither did Americans for Prosperity, one of the groups that funded those miserable attack ads during the presidential and Senate campaigns.

I say it's time for us to stop creating our own economic "uncertainty" by keeping up an unwinnable political fight.

It's time to move on, spend cautiously and help those who need care.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Matt Reed: Quit the fight against Obamacare

And a new study shows that opting out of the expansion of government insurance for the poor would cost Florida $100 million more per year than it saves. Moreover, we would continue to have the nation?